Israeli authorities are delving into allegations raised by U.S. researchers, indicating that certain investors might have possessed foresight of a Hamas plan to attack Israel on October 7, Reuters reported on Monday.
The researchers, law professors Robert Jackson Jr from New York University and Joshua Mitts of Columbia University, uncovered substantial short-selling of shares leading up to the attacks, which has ignited the ongoing conflict.
Days preceding the attack, traders seemingly anticipated the unfolding events, as outlined by the researchers. They noted a surge in short interest in the MSCI Israel Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) on October 2, based on data from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Furthermore, just before the attack, short selling of Israeli securities on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE) notably surged.
The researchers highlighted the unprecedented nature of this short-selling, surpassing levels observed during other periods of crisis, including the 2008 financial crisis, the 2014 Israel-Gaza war, and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Israeli response and ongoing investigation
In response to these findings, the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE) redirected inquiries to the Israel Securities Authority, stating, “The matter is known to the authority and is under investigation by all the relevant parties.” The Israel Securities Authority confirmed the investigation but provided no further details. Israeli police did not immediately comment on the matter.
Profits and unusual trading activity
The researchers brought to light the profits reaped through short-selling, particularly focusing on Leumi, Israel’s largest bank. Between September 14 and October 5, 4.43 million new shares sold short yielded profits of 3.2 billion shekels ($862 million). It was further pointed out that a sharp and unusual increase in trading risky short-dated options on Israeli companies took place just before the attacks, emphasising the potential exploitation of tragic events by informed traders.
The study indicates a pattern reminiscent of early April when initial reports suggested Hamas was planning an attack. Short volume in the MSCI Israel ETF peaked on April 3, resembling patterns observed just before the October 7 attacks.
Traders profiting from tragic events
The researchers concluded that traders informed about the impending attacks profited from the tragic events, highlighting a concerning gap in U.S. and international enforcement of legal prohibitions on informed trading.
US researchers suggest that certain investors may have had prior knowledge of a planned Hamas attack on Israel on October 7 and potentially profited through short-selling Israeli securities. The report also points to the use of cryptocurrency by pro-Palestinian groups, including Hamas, for fundraising. Israel Securities Authority is investigating, with Israel’s largest bank Leumi reportedly involved in significant short-selling, resulting in profits of 3.2 billion shekels and $862 million between September 14 and October 5. Additionally, the text notes the resurgence of a bribery case involving former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
Representatives of Hamas travelled to Moscow yesterday, 26 October, to meet with Russian foreign ministers. During the visit, it is believed that the group discussed the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas.
This is not the first time representatives from Hamas have met with Russian officials. Last month, Hamas politburo chief Ismael Haniyeh travelled to Russia to meet with senior figures. According toThe Hill, Hamas members also likely met with Russians in September to provide a briefing on “Hamas’s final preparations for the [upcoming] attack” on Israel. Hamas thanked Russian President Vladimir Putin for his position on the ongoing conflict.
This cannot be seen as a coincidence. In fact, there are some reasons to suggest that Russia helped Hamas prepare for its attacks on Israel.
For example, according to a report published by The Wall Street Journal, a Moscow-based crypto exchange was found to have sent millions of dollars to Hamas the day before the group’s 7 October attack. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace also found that Russia has historically “armed and supported Palestinian militants”. Russia has even facilitated material support to Hamas in the past.
But Russia’s connections to Hamas do not end there.
According to the Ukrainian Centre of National Resistance, the Russian private military company Wagner Group helped train Hamas militants before the 7 October attack on Israel. During the build-up, Wagner reportedly trained and transferred “combat experience to the Palestinian militant group”. It also found that Wagner trained Hamas fighters on how to use “small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) [that] drop explosive devices on to vehicles and other targets”. Wagner allegedly provided UAVs to Hamas militants so that they could be used for the Israel attacks. (It is important to note that, at this time, no evidence suggests that Russia directly supplied weapons and other equipment to Hamas before the attack on Israel).
Outside of the land war, it is believed that Russia assisted Hamas through other avenues.
For example, on 7 October, Israeli Government and media websites were targeted by distributed denial-of-service attacks. According to The Hill, the hacking groups responsible for this disruption were associated with Russia. In addition, Russia led a disinformation campaign, falsely stating that the weapons used during Hamas’ attack were purchased on the black market from Ukraine. This was an attempt by Russia to erode international support for Ukraine, but the fabricated statement was quickly dismissed.
Following the attack, Russia was notably silent. Putin has often claimed that he is a supporter of Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but the Russian leader initially failed to contact the Israelis. Eventually, when commenting on the situation, Putin said that the “fundamental interests of the Palestinian people” were not taken into account. Hamas officials used this to their advantage.
“Russia sympathises with us,” senior Hamas official Ali Baraka said in an interview with RT. “We’re not alone on the battlefield.”
Israel appears to be seeking collective punishment for Hamas atrocities, and this is not self-defense under international law
Martin Shaw
What would Russia have to gain from Hamas’ attack? Why would Russia support Hamas?
According to Newsweek, Russia might be hoping to position itself as a mediator in the conflict as it seeks to bolster its international prestige and influence.
Shortly after the attacks, the Kremlin released a statement saying that the Russian leader was trying to “help normalise the situation” in the Middle East. Russia even submitted a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council calling for a ceasefire.
But this fooled no one.
The draft resolution did not mention the attacks orchestrated by Hamas. Russia also blamed the United States for the recent developments in the Middle East.
Relations between Russia and Israel also appear strained as Russia has not expressed its sympathies for the tragedies occurring in the region.
Finally, Russia’s relationship with Hamas is well-known and well-documented. Thus, it is difficult for a country to serve as an unbiased intermediary if it has already chosen a side in the conflict.
Russia may also seek to establish a geopolitical power shift. Given the stiff sanctions imposed on it by the international community after its full invasion of Ukraine, Russia has been strengthening its relationship with China, North Korea, and Iran.
Economic and political support between Russia and China, for example, has grown. Chinese imports of Russian goods have risen, and trade between Russia and China may exceed $200 billion this year. Meanwhile, given its limited access to the defence market due to international sanctions, Russia has been purchasing artillery and rockets from the North Koreans. There is some belief that Russia is buying weapons from North Korea in exchange for food.
Russia is also building a defence partnership with Iran as it is purchasing drones. Both Russia and Iran also seek to “undermine [the work and credibility of] the United States and its allies”.
Overall, Russia’s support of Hamas is no accident. It is hoping that its support for Hamas will lead to chaos and that this will present greater challenges for the globe.
Russia is also looking to establish a new power axis in the east, and it is strategically building its relationships with China, North Korea, and Iran, to that effect. Together, this group of autocratic leaders will seek to undermine democracy and the global rule of law. In short, they are hoping to weaken the West.
Russia cannot be allowed to succeed. Otherwise, the establishment of this new access will only lead to further destruction and crisis across the globe.
MANCHESTER, N.H. (Diya TV) — Entrepreneur turned political figure, Vivek Ramaswamy, received a precautionary warning from former FBI agent Mike Wyatt during a recent campaign stop in Indianola, Iowa. The encounter, captured in a X video, has prompted discussions about potential safety risks and concerns regarding federal agencies.
I met a former FBI agent and his wife on the campaign trail here in Iowa. They agree with me: we need to root out the corruption & shut down the FBI. At the local level, we have police & prosecutors. At the federal level, we have U.S. marshals & the DOJ. An intermediary… pic.twitter.com/gt9153XyaS
Wyatt, a former SWAT team member with over two decades of FBI service, expressed reservations about safety risks and the current state of the FBI. Wyatt voiced concerns about the politicization of the bureau, drawing parallels to historical issues dating back to the era of J. Edgar Hoover.
The candid conversation has brought attention to worries about corruption and politicization within federal agencies, with Wyatt suggesting that these issues have persisted since the 1960s.
Amidst these discussions, a separate incident emerged as a New Hampshire man, Tyler Anderson, was arrested for threatening Ramaswamy and his supporters at a campaign event. The U.S. Department of Justice revealed that Anderson responded to a Ramaswamy campaign text with a death threat.
Ramaswamy’s campaign confirmed the threat, expressing gratitude for law enforcement’s swift response and professionalism. Anderson, a 30-year-old Dover resident, admitted to sending threatening messages to Ramaswamy and “multiple other campaigns.”
Ramaswamy, in response to questions by reporters, said “I’m grateful to law-enforcement for responding rapidly and as effectively as they did. I’m also grateful to my team and many retired New Hampshire police officers and New Hampshire, police officers and local PD.”
The following petition will be sent to the Heads of the Ancient Orthodox Churches in the name of all signators. Those signing should be Orthodox Christians in communion with the Ancient Patriarchs.
…
To the Primates of the Ancient Orthodox Churches,
Your All-Holiness Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople and Ecumenical Patriarch; Your Beatitude Theodore, Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and all Africa; Your Beatitude John, Patriarch of Antioch and all the East; Your Beatitude Theophilos, Patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem and of all Palestine and Israel; Your Beatitude Chrysostomos, Archbishop of Nova Justiniana and all Cyprus
We the undersigned are Orthodox Christians of all ranks, nations, and jurisdictions. We raise our voice on behalf of the victims of unprovoked Russian aggression against Ukraine. We cry out for the innocent child, for the weak, for the refugee, for the abducted, for the murdered, for the raped women and the raped children, for the brutally tortured. In sacred duty to Christ himself, we urgently appeal to you now, and we affirm that;
1. The Patriarch of Moscow, Kirill (Gundyayev) has argued for, encouraged and blessed the murder of innocents. He is bloodguilty. He should be tried for murder.
2. We add our voice to support those hundreds of Ukrainian priests, and we request that the Primates of the ancient Orthodox Churches hold a canonical trial, and depose Patriarch Kirill of Moscow.
3. We request that the Primates of the ancient Orthodox Churches examine the charges of heresy brought by the authors and signators of the ‘Declaration on the “Russian World” (Russkii Mir) Teaching’.
The Russian Federation today wages a criminal invasion of Ukraine, commits atrocities, regularly commits terrorist acts, and is committing genocide.
The Patriarch of Moscow (Kirill, Gundyayev) provides an ideological platform for this, while he he argues in favor of, blesses and justifies this criminal aggression.
Most local Orthodox churches have condemned Russia’s criminal invasion. Yet very few bishops have condemned the shameful role of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Numerous respected Orthodox theologians have brought a charge of heresy against Kirill.
Small spelling change. . Removed quotation marks at the beginning
New petition description:
The following petition will be sent to the Heads of the Ancient Orthodox Churches in the name of all signators. Those signing should be Orthodox Christians in communion with the Ancient Patriarchs.
…
“ To the Primates of the Ancient Orthodox Churches,
Your All-Holiness Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople and Ecumenical Patriarch; Your Beatitude Theodore, Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and all Africa; Your Beatitude John, Patriarch of Antioch and all the East; Your Beatitude Theophilos, Patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem and of all Palestine and Israel; Your Beatitude Chrysostomos, Archbishop of Nova Justiniana and all Cyprus
We the undersigned are Orthodox Christians of all ranks, nations, and jurisdictions. We raise our voice on behalf of the victims of unprovoked Russian aggression against Ukraine. We cry out for the innocent child, for the weak, for the refugee, for the abducted, for the murdered, for the raped women and the raped children, for the brutally tortured. In sacred duty to Christ himself, we urgently appeal to you now, and we affirm that;
1. The Patriarch of Moscow, Kirill (Gundyayev) has argued for, encouraged and blessed the murder of innocents. He is bloodguilty. He should be tried for murder.
2. We add our voice to support those hundreds of Ukrainian priests, and we request that the Primates of the ancient Orthodox Churches hold a canonical trial, and depose Patriarch Kirill of Moscow.
3. We request that the Primates of the ancient Orthodox Churches examine the charges of heresy brought by the authors and signators of the ‘Declaration on the “Russian World” (Russkii Mir) Teaching’.
Special counsel Jack Smith’s hypotheticals in recent court filings have caught the eye of legal analysts who think he may be telegraphing “seriously scandalous Trump crimes,” according to The Daily Beast’s Jose Pagliery.
Smith’s team in an 82-page filing over the weekend warned an appellate court against granting former President Donald Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution because his post-election crusade was an official part of his presidential duties.
“That approach would grant immunity from criminal prosecution to a President who accepts a bribe in exchange for directing a lucrative government contract to the payer; a President who instructs the FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy; a President who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics; or a President who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary,” the filing said.
“In each of these scenarios, the president could assert that he was simply executing the laws; or communicating with the Department of Justice; or discharging his powers as commander-in-chief; or engaging in foreign diplomacy,” the special counsel’s team argued.
Prosecutors used similar hypotheticals in a filing to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan earlier this year, arguing against Trump’s immunity claim.
Smith’s team warned over the weekend that Trump’s argument is “sobering.”
“In his view, a court should treat a President’s criminal conduct as immune from prosecution as long as it takes the form of correspondence with a state official about a matter in which there is a federal interest, a meeting with a member of the executive branch, or a statement on a matter of public concern,” they wrote.
Legal experts have highlighted the strange examples found in Smith’s filings.
Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti called attention to the part that warns against immunity for a president “who instructs the FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy [or] a president who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics.”
“Interesting choice of hypotheticals…” replied conservative lawyer and frequent Trump critic George Conway. “It took quite an imagination,” he quipped later.
Trump’s lawyers have complained about the use of hypotheticals.
“Ignoring actual lessons from history, the government provides a list of lurid hypotheticals that have never happened—including treason and murder,” Trump’s legal team wrote in an October 26 filing.
Trump’s lawyers sought to draw a distinction between the hypothetical and Trump’s actions after the election, claiming he was acting in his official capacity when he sought to overturn President Joe Biden’s win.
But the attorneys “also cornered themselves — making clear that if Trump actually did any of Smith’s ‘lurid’ hypotheticals, there’s no way his official position could save him,” Pagliery wrote on Wednesday.
“Some or all of these hypotheticals, depending on the facts, would likely involve purely private conduct, rendering them irrelevant here,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to hear oral arguments on Trump’s immunity claim on Jan. 9 after it was rejected by Chutkan. The Supreme Court declined Smith’s request to fast-track the matter before the appeals court rules, though it may still take the case if the appellate court ruling is ultimately appealed.
Legal experts widely expect the court to uphold Chutkan’s ruling.
“Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass. Former presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office,” Chutkan wrote last month.
“Defendant’s four-year service as commander in chief, she added, “did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens.”
As Special Counsel Jack Smith makes the case that former President Donald Trump shouldn’t have vast immunity to commit crimes, Smith has compiled a very curious list of theoretical misdeeds that seem to telegraph potential bombshells at his upcoming D.C. trial.
Accepting a bribe, ordering an FBI director to fake evidence against a political foe, ordering the military to murder critics, and even selling nuclear secrets to a foreign enemy—these are the particular and peculiar crimes that prosecutors say Trump could get away with if he succeeds in arguing that presidential immunity gives him king-like powers to do as he pleases from the White House.
Again, theoretically, of course.
“In each of these scenarios, the president could assert that he was simply executing the laws; or communicating with the Department of Justice; or discharging his powers as commander-in-chief; or engaging in foreign diplomacy,” prosecutors wrote to appellate judges on Saturday.
Former President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a “Commit to Caucus” event for his supporters in Coralville, Iowa.
They used nearly identical phrasing in a court filing to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in October.
The billionaire and the special prosecutor are currently battling ahead of a criminal trial in the nation’s capital, tentatively scheduled to begin in March on the eve of Super Tuesday. Trump is desperately trying to delay it, with his lawyers openly complaining that the trial could interrupt his presidential campaign at the height of the state primary elections. Meanwhile, Smith wants to start it as soon as possible, something that would allow GOP voters choosing their top Republican candidate to see federal prosecutors finally lay out their evidence that Trump broke the law by trying to overturn the 2020 election.
But D.C. appellate judges must first consider key issues, including whether Trump can effectively render himself immune from criminal prosecution by justifying everything he did as an official presidential act.
That’s what has Smith’s prosecutors warning that Trump’s delusions of invulnerability pose a danger to the fate of the republic.
“The implications of the defendant’s broad immunity theory are sobering. In his view, a court should treat a President’s criminal conduct as immune from prosecution as long as it takes the form of correspondence with a state official about a matter in which there is a federal interest, a meeting with a member of the executive branch, or a statement on a matter of public concern,” they wrote on Saturday.
Over the weekend, the usual legal commentators who weigh in on MAGA madness zeroed in on Smith’s bizarre examples of specific scandals.
“Interesting choice of hypotheticals…” tweeted the lawyer George Conway, whose ex-wife Kellyanne Conway long served as a Trump political adviser.
“It took quite an imagination,” he later added, sarcastically.
Smith’s prosecution team has been incredibly tight-lipped in the run-up to trial, forcing journalists to rely almost entirely on the steady stream of court documents in the case—but leaving the curious crowd of onlookers reading the tea leaves and trying to make sense of hints and innuendo. Some found it humorous when the D.C. indictment charging the 45th American president ran 45 pages. This time around, the peanut gallery swears Smith is telegraphing his case.
Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti, who co-hosts the It’s Complicated legal podcast, drew his followers’ attention to Smith’s warning that blanket immunity would spare any president “who instructs the FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy [or] a president who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics.”
Trump’s attorneys have previously shrugged off any notion that these theoretical crimes are rooted in reality. The last time prosecutors floated these ideas, defense lawyers Todd Blanche and John F. Lauro ripped into Smith’s team for even venturing into that zone.
“Ignoring actual lessons from history, the government provides a list of lurid hypotheticals that have never happened—including treason and murder,” they wrote in a Oct. 26 court filing.
They also tried to make a legal distinction between Smith’s examples and whatever Trump actually did, doubling down on their theory that the billionaire was acting in his official capacity when he told Georgia’s top elections official to “find” 11,780 non-existent votes, attempted to employ fake electors, and tried to pressure his vice president to interrupt certification of the election results.
But in distinguishing between Smith’s examples and Trump’s actions, defense lawyers also cornered themselves—making clear that if Trump actually did any of Smith’s “lurid” hypotheticals, there’s no way his official position would save him.
“Some or all of these hypotheticals, depending on the facts, would likely involve purely private conduct, rendering them irrelevant here,” they wrote.
The fate of the trial is now in the hands of Judges J. Michelle Childs, Karen LeCraft Henderson, and Florence Y. Pan. The judges haven’t heard oral arguments yet, but they gave some indication on Tuesday that they plan to explore whether they might just kick the case right back to the trial judge—or force Smith off the case entirely.
In an extremely brief order on Tuesday, the judges advised that “counsel be prepared to address” what they called “discrete issues” raised in court filings by third parties. So far, that only includes an argument made by the government watchdog nonprofit American Oversight that Trump’s supposed immunity isn’t even an appellate issue before the trial takes place—and an argument by conservative legal scholars that claims “no statute creates a Special Counsel with the jurisdiction and authority Smith wields.”
Smith’s prosecutors and Trump’s defense team are scheduled to argue in court next Tuesday.
Donald Trump might be praising the Supreme Court’s refusal of special counsel Jack Smith’s plea for an expedited hearing on the former president’s immunity claim, but he might be celebrating too soon.
Watergate prosecutor Nick Ackerman warned Wednesday that what Trump considers good news is going to blow up in his face.
“Not so fast!” he wrote in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. “My New Year’s prediction: The Supreme Court will refuse to hear Mr. Trump’s inevitable appeal from the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals finding that presidential immunity does not apply to Mr. Trump’s alleged criminal acts arising out of the Jan. 6th insurrection. The criminal prosecution against Mr. Trump will proceed to trial in March.”
Trump is claiming that he’s immune from criminal prosecution for actions he took on January 6 because he was acting in his official capacity as president. In an effort to brush the claim aside and get quickly to trial, Smith asked that he be able to sidestep the lower Court of Appeals hearing of his case and go straight to the Supreme Court.
The court refused — meaning the immunity argument will now be heard by the appeals court and then likely end up at the Supreme Court, which experts have said will likely delay Smith’s trial that’s currently set for March — a slowdown that feeds into Trump’s tactic of delay.
But Ackerman, who was an assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate case, suggests that will not be the case.
“Ultimately, Mr. Trump’s efforts to manipulate the legal system and postpone his criminal trial are doomed to fail,” he wrote.
Trump has already tested the immunity claim before an appeals court. On Dec. 1, the D.C. Circuit heard arguments that he should be immune from civil litigation brought against him by Capitol police officers and members of Congress.
It was roundly rejected, with the court finding the actions arose from campaigning, and were “not an official act of the office.”
In Atlanta, another court of appeals unanimously rejected a similar claim by Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, who said he should be immune from charges involving attempts to overturn the 2020 election brought by District Attorney Fani Willis.
“Whatever the precise contours of Meadows’s official authority, that authority did not extend to an alleged conspiracy to overturn valid election results,” the court found.
“The Supreme Court justices were undoubtedly aware of [the Atlanta] decision when they denied Mr. Smith’s motion to hear the appeal,” wrote Ackerman. “[It] clearly stands for the proposition that participating in a conspiracy to overturn the peaceful transfer of power is not within the scope of executive authority. As such, the crimes Mr. Trump is alleged to have committed in the criminal case are not excused by presidential immunity.”
Ackerman concluded, “The Supreme Court will be fully justified in not accepting an appeal from Mr. Trump on his all but certain loss in the D.C. Circuit expected shortly after next week’s scheduled Jan. 9th oral argument. Presidential immunity is simply not a controversy the Supreme Court needs or in which it should want to partake, thereby permitting the criminal trial of Mr. Trump to proceed as scheduled without the indeterminable delay he hopes to achieve.”
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
